Author
Topic: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO (Read 109859 times)

I thought it was tower that said "Go around" because it sounded more like a command rather than an announcement, but after listening to it again the remnants of a call sign after the "go around" call make it seem like a pilot was speaking and not the controller.

When a pilot says "go around" or going around" it is an informational statement for the controller and other aircraft.It can sound relaxed to intense, depending of what's going on.

In light - when a pilot says "going around" it IS a command. If I say "going around", the controller's primary job is now working for my passengers, me and my airplane.I can take a C-150 Cessna, declare an emergency and shut down JFK if in my opinion, JFK is the safest place for me to land.There might be some questions asked later, but every pilot has that authority.

Agreed. {Edited to add: I completely agree with oktalist's subsequent point separating the concept of go-around and declaration of emergency.}

Another interesting thing: the headline on the CNN site says

NTSB: Pilots asked to do a 'go-around' 1.5 seconds before impact

No, the NTSB didn't say that. The quote from the NTSB's Deborah Hersman says that they "called to initiate go-around", but this was in a section of the press conference where she was referring to CVR and FDR information. So we all know that when she says they "called to initiate," she's probably referring to a pilot ordering it for the cockpit crew to carry it out. But CNN turned that into a headline that makes it sound like they made a request, as if to ATC.

And if that's not convincing enough, a paragraph farther down in the story says:

For example, she said, the increase of power in the engines appears to correlate with the cockpit crew's request to "go-around," a call to abort the landing and try it again.

Note, Hersman didn't call it a "request" to go-around, that's CNN's interpretation, and now also probably most readers' understanding of how things happened. I hope people don't end up thinking "Gee, if ATC had only approved that request right away, they might have been OK..." It very much skews one's understanding of the situation.

I'm not so naive that I'm shocked when the press gets technical details wrong (I'm an engineer, and I see science and engineering issues mangled all the time...) but it's still unfortunate. The CNN story seems to be generating around a thousand comments per hour, so I'm not inclined to wade into that typically chaotic fray and get dragged into discussions of conspiracies, political parties, and the like.

Here's more on the status of the pilot flying, from the San Jose Mercury-News:

Asiana Airlines President Yoon Young-doo apologized to victims and their families, and defended the South Korean pilots as "skilled" veterans. But a spokeswoman for the airlines said later that while pilot Lee Kang-kook had nearly 10,000 hours of flying experience, he only had 43 hours with the Boeing 777, still was in training for the long-range plane and was making his first flight into SFO on that aircraft.

No, the NTSB didn't say that. The quote from the NTSB's Deborah Hersman says that they "called to initiate go-around", but this was in a section of the press conference where she was referring to CVR and FDR information. So we all know that when she says they "called to initiate," she's probably referring to a pilot ordering it for the cockpit crew to carry it out. But CNN turned that into a headline that makes it sound like they made a request, as if to ATC.

And if that's not convincing enough, a paragraph farther down in the story says:

For example, she said, the increase of power in the engines appears to correlate with the cockpit crew's request to "go-around," a call to abort the landing and try it again.

Note, Hersman didn't call it a "request" to go-around, that's CNN's interpretation, and now also probably most readers' understanding of how things happened. I hope people don't end up thinking "Gee, if ATC had only approved that request right away, they might have been OK..." It very much skews one's understanding of the situation.

I'm not so naive that I'm shocked when the press gets technical details wrong (I'm an engineer, and I see science and engineering issues mangled all the time...) but it's still unfortunate. The CNN story seems to be generating around a thousand comments per hour, so I'm not inclined to wade into that typically chaotic fray and get dragged into discussions of conspiracies, political parties, and the like.

Just thought I'd vent with folks who would understand.

I saw that too and it made me cringe a bit, especially after listening to the audio. They definitely didn't request a go around to the tower, just to each other in the cockpit, obviously way too late. Big difference. I tweeted at CNN but, can you believe it, they didn't change the headline.

757-rules

Is it just me, or is it different with 3 people in the cockpit? Turkish at EHAM had a training captain, Asiana also (from AVHerald) is there more pressure on the pilots?

[Edit] I also tried to imagine how things go when you do something the first time.

It appears the pilot was on his first landing in a 777 at SFO, which can be explaned as someone who is too focused on steering the airplane (frenetic) so he had (in his head) no time to check the other instruments, the way you would be able to when you have done something a couple of times (more relaxed flying)

First landing? Nonsense. This was a classic example of the difference between the performance of real pilots and that of modern day "flight managers" who for some inexplicable reason are always trying to insulate themselves from direct control of the flight path by utilizing as much technology as possible at all times. They will fly the approach to touchdown on autopilot, and if there is a runway incursion on short final they will be found spinning heading and altitude hold knobs instead of grabbing the yoke and throttles. There is an excellent discussion of this including an excellent video on this other LiveATC thread:

"Oktalist, even at 500' I doubt he "suddenly" saw three red and that in the minutes prior to that point he had been stabilized on the GS. Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count. It ain't like cracking the throttle on that IO-540 in front of you and getting instant torque. That's why turbine pilots must always be well ahead of the equipment if they are to be able to stabilize the flight path, and generally flight energy decisions and adjustments have to be made at least ten seconds in advance."

"You see, that's why I know this is all BS.... that plane was not stabilized on the glide path with everything hanging out because if it was the engines would have been already cranking at a good clip. No, the engines were probably at idle because he was porpoising the GS... indeed perhaps due to fixation on the PAPI ("chasing the needles") or maybe he was looking at something else. The two things he was definitely not looking at were airspeed and power. When the report is released the FDR and CVR will tell us "the rrrrrrrrrrrrest of the story", and it will not be pretty. I had to laugh when Asiana announced that they had grounded their 777 fleet for inspection, when they really should have grounded their pilot roster for re-examination."

Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator. I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed. The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it. On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes.

Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator. I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed. The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it. On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes.

(There's some discussion on this but) pitch controls airspeed, power controls rate of climb or descent. If you are on airspeed, and you are low, the normal correction would be to add a little bit of power with no pitch change and fly level until you are back on glidepath. I encourage you to take an intro flight where you spend an hour or two in a real airplane trying out how it reacts in real situations.

In this case they were both low and far below airspeed and the engines were at flight idle until a few seconds before the tail struck the seawall well short of the threshold. InterpreDemon has it nailed.

If you'll pardon this slight course deviation, an (now-former?) NTSB intern today 'confirmed' the names of the four Asiana captains involved. Only trouble was that he was joking, but KTVU (Fox affiliate in San Francisco) didn't quite catch that before their noon newscast today. Major retractions ensued. Must see the included YouTube clip to fully appreciate.

"I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes."

Ryan - What I find very disturbing over many years of experience and observation, is the number of accidents that have been instigated or facilitated by the inappropriate use of autopilot functionality. For example, aircraft that plunged to the ground needlessly in Indiana and Buffalo thanks to pilots remaining on autopilot in icing conditions and chatting away as the airframe got loaded up to the point where the AP disengaged and handed the clueless pilots an un-flyable machine. Even if a pilot is unaware of icing he will soon become aware that something is wrong if hand flying because he will detect and/or note the changes in trim or need for additional power, etc. Flight 401 went down in the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was obsessed with a gear indicator light and nobody was in charge of flying the plane, so nobody noticed when a bump on the yoke by the captain disengaged the AP and they gradually flew down into the swamp.

I could go on and on with endless examples and, just like the single vs twin debate, somebody could cite the accidents that never happened due to the extra engine or give anecdotal stories about the pilot who but for the autopilot would have crashed after falling asleep, however thanks to being on autopilot when the engine started sputtering it woke him up and he was able to skillfully and expertly perform a dead-stick, off-airport landing. Wow! What a pilot!

I have my own rule for autopilot use, and that is to disengage and fly manually whenever more than one flight path parameter needs to be changed. For example, a change in heading during cruise... no problem. Change in heading and altitude and/or airspeed? I'm doing that myself because, frankly, I can do it better or sequence things optimally in a way that is far more difficult to do by telling the autopilot what to do, waiting to see what it does and then providing any required feedback. I also find that when I am "flying" the plane I am more engaged with the world outside the cockpit and have better overall situational awareness... I feel like I am part of the machine and it actually reduces my workload because in a high-load environment like flying into New York in IMC I find the flying part of the job (including the scan) is like riding a bike. It's hard to explain, but for me it's just easier to be firing on all cylinders than to be figuring out which ones I might not need at the moment.